Stake Pres. Ditches Ethics to Smear Tal B.

[_LifeOnaPlate]

Here is my favorite post on the MAD thread concerning this topic from juliann:

http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index. ... 1208420617

Kinda makes me wonder who he would strap it on for now.

I know I am probably taking it out of context. But it is the best line I have ever read at MAD.

As you were, citizens.

I almost reported it. ;)

[_Tarski]

Leftism is in the dumpster of history .

Then why are you so obssessed with it?

[_mentalgymnast]

I think it probably has to do with the fact that I see gray areas as gray, rather than strictly black and white.

Mark this ladies and gentlemen. Does this statement match Scratch's track record?

Just asking.

Regards,
MG

Gee... You're not upset, are you MG?

Not now. I had a good night's sleep and was able to return to an emotionally stable frame of mind. You should have seen me yesterday after having made the post you've clipped above...poor dog...

I was SOOOO angry. <g> Yep, I can laugh about it now.

by the way, I think I've got you partially figured out Mr. Scratch. You're more bark than bite.

That poor dog...

I hold you personally responsible.

Regards,
MG

P.S. no, I was not angry at all. Why do you ask?

[_Trevor]

And you assume the SP is more likely to recolor the past than Tal Bachman?

I would say both are liable to rework the past, as any human being is, but Keyes has a lot more riding on his response to Tal.

[_harmony]

Marg is correct. When in doubt, look for who benefits the most.

Trevor is also correct. We "remember" the past not necessarily as it was, but through our own filters, and our filters are invariably more sympathetic to ourselves than they are to the Other, whoever that may be.

And you assume the SP is more likely to recolor the past than Tal Bachman?

No, I assume they both see the conversation through their own filter, so it's no wonder they differ in that view.

Had it been me, I doubt I would have used anyone's real name.

I understand the SP's rebuttal; he was more or less given two choices: take the high ground and let it be what it is, or defend himself. He didn't choose wisely. He chose to defend himself against a shadow, something that was simply a point of view. I think that was a poor choice. Further, I don't agree with the placement of the rebuttal. It seems to me the letter(s) should have been posted in the same forum where the original post was placed. Otherwise, there's no clarity given and thus no understanding reached. So that also points to a low reason for the rebuttal: seeking revenge. Instead of using his authority wisely and for the good of the church, the SP (and his wife... for goodness sakes, what kind of woman publically declares she's hidden the brains God gave her?) escalates the storm instead of calms it, seeks to use an authority he knows Tal no longer acknowledges which makes SP look like a fool (what is in the water up north?), and shows his fear of the church.

So it sounds to me like the SP was given an assignment, rather than trying to clear the air, and the assignment, which he chose to accept (he could have refused and taken the high ground, but he didn't, which alone makes me pity the poor folk in his stake) was to try to smack down a former member of his stake. Bad form. Better to post where Tal posted. Better to simply thank Tal for posting his own personal view, making clear that Tal's memory was valid for Tal. The rest is self-serving self-justification, when he could simply have commented that he didn't personally see the conversation that way, but he could see how Tal would see it his way. Bad form. Unfortunately, I think he's a pretty typical SP. *sigh*

[_mentalgymnast]

I'll have to leave it to others as to whether or not I've adequately answered this in simplest form. A man's honor is a man's honor. When his honor has been questioned, his good name has been besmirched.

Regards,
MG

Hi there, my dear friend MG. Are you saying that "a man's honor" is contingent upon his utter capitulation to the Church?

I'll leave that up to you to decide. You're really trying hard to steer this whole unfortunate situation away from Tal and onto Pres. Keyes, aren't you?

You seem to be a perfect candidate for a possible diagnosis of avoidance behavior.

Definition:

A conscious or unconscious defense mechanism by which a person tries to escape from unpleasant situation...

Tal has put the critics of the church into a potentially uncomfortable position. Your behavior so far seems to be leaning towards a readjustment in which the SP is the culprit instead of Tal.

A form of escape.

Keep it up. You're looking kinda silly.

by the way, the only one that can clear this mess up is Tal. Haven't seen him around...yet. You sure as heckfire don't have the moral authority to do so.

And no, I'm not mad. <grin>

Can't afford to lose another dog.

Regards,
MG

[_LifeOnaPlate]

And you assume the SP is more likely to recolor the past than Tal Bachman?

I would say both are liable to rework the past, as any human being is, but Keyes has a lot more riding on his response to Tal.

First, I'm not convinced of that in the least, and second, "having a lot riding" on something doesn't equate to dishonesty.

[_LifeOnaPlate]

Marg is correct. When in doubt, look for who benefits the most.

Trevor is also correct. We "remember" the past not necessarily as it was, but through our own filters, and our filters are invariably more sympathetic to ourselves than they are to the Other, whoever that may be.

And you assume the SP is more likely to recolor the past than Tal Bachman?

No, I assume they both see the conversation through their own filter, so it's no wonder they differ in that view.

Had it been me, I doubt I would have used anyone's real name.

I understand the SP's rebuttal; he was more or less given two choices: take the high ground and let it be what it is, or defend himself. He didn't choose wisely. He chose to defend himself against a shadow, something that was simply a point of view. I think that was a poor choice. Further, I don't agree with the placement of the rebuttal. It seems to me the letter(s) should have been posted in the same forum where the original post was placed. Otherwise, there's no clarity given and thus no understanding reached. So that also points to a low reason for the rebuttal: seeking revenge. Instead of using his authority wisely and for the good of the church, the SP (and his wife... for goodness sakes, what kind of woman publically declares she's hidden the brains God gave her?) escalates the storm instead of calms it, seeks to use an authority he knows Tal no longer acknowledges which makes SP look like a fool (what is in the water up north?), and shows his fear of the church.

So it sounds to me like the SP was given an assignment, rather than trying to clear the air, and the assignment, which he chose to accept (he could have refused and taken the high ground, but he didn't, which alone makes me pity the poor folk in his stake) was to try to smack down a former member of his stake. Bad form. Better to post where Tal posted. Better to simply thank Tal for posting his own personal view, making clear that Tal's memory was valid for Tal. The rest is self-serving self-justification, when he could simply have commented that he didn't personally see the conversation that way, but he could see how Tal would see it his way. Bad form. Unfortunately, I think he's a pretty typical SP. *sigh*

Keyes felt Tal misrepresented him publicly, Keyes responded respectfully to clarify his position. Good form. Well done.

[_mentalgymnast]

Hi

I have a deep appreciation for Pres. Keyes for all the reasons I mentioned. And I admire his wife for trying to stick up for him. I feel bad that this has hurt her. She's a doll.

I just sent a letter to Dr. Shades for him to post on MAD about this. I think he's going to post a link.

Just saw this. I look forward to your response over at MAD. It would be nice to get this mess cleared up, huh? Many times the truth lies somewhere in the middle.

Regards,
MG

[_harmony]

And you assume the SP is more likely to recolor the past than Tal Bachman?

I would say both are liable to rework the past, as any human being is, but Keyes has a lot more riding on his response to Tal.

First, I'm not convinced of that in the least, and second, "having a lot riding" on something doesn't equate to dishonesty.

You haven't studied human memory much, or what motivates people, have you? DCP was right (yes, the foundation of the world just shook); a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest. Tal's memory of the conversation would no doubt differ significantly from the SP's, simply because they both have their own filters which protect themselves and their own world view from anything likely to cause harm to either. It's not at all surprising they remember it differently.

by the way, this conversation was not confidential, and therefore no ethics have been breached. Only confession of sin is confidential, not every conversation a member has with church authorities. And doubt is not a sin.